knoxville c.u.s.d. #202 evaluation plan for certified staff...knoxville c.u.s.d. #202 evaluation...

Knoxville C.U.S.D. #202

Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff

Developed 2014-2015

Revised 2017-2018

Table of Contents

Professional Evaluation Plan Committee Members Section 1: Introduction and Overview of Danielson Framework Section 2: Knoxville CUSD #202 Professional Practice Beliefs and Commitments Section 3: Standards and Common Themes for Certified Staff Section 4: Professional Practice Summative Rating Definitions Section 5: Student Growth Model Section 5: Professional Evaluation Plan Summative Rating System Section 6: Roles of Evaluators and Certified Staff Members in the Evaluation Process Section 7: Definitions of Terms in the Professional Evaluation Plan Section 8: Non-Tenured Professional Evaluation Plan Chart Section 9: Tenured Professional Evaluation Plan Chart Section 10: Timeline for a Professional Development Plan Section 11: Timeline for a Remediation Plan Professional Development Plan

3

4

5

6

8

10

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

2 Knoxville CUSD #202 Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff

Evaluation Committee Process and Members

Process

In the fall of 2010 the Evaluation Committee of Knoxville CUSD #202, which consisted of members of the

Knoxville Education Association and District Administration, worked to revise the evaluation instrument for

Certified Staff. At that time, the template was revised to align with Charlotte Danielson’s 2011 version of the

Framework for Teaching. It was also revised to include a 4-tier rating system. Both of these changes were

required by Senate Bill 7 (SB7) and the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA). In the fall of 2013, the

Evaluation Committee began meeting again to review the evaluation instrument and to begin developing an

Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff. The evaluation instrument was revised to reflect the 2013 Framework for

Teaching. That process continued through the 2014-2015 school year when a Student Growth Model was

developed to be piloted during the 2015-2016 school year. Mrs. Jodi Scott, Regional Superintendent of Schools

in the Henderson-Mercer-Warren Regional Office of Education was involved at this time and was instrumental

to the effectiveness of the committee. The Evaluation Committee met in the spring of 2018 to review and

revise the plan as needed. Due to changes in personnel, the composition of the committee changed and can

be seen below.

The following Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff is the culmination of the work of the Knoxville CUSD #202

Evaluation Committee. It is considered to be a complete document, but will undergo ongoing review and

revision. It was approved by the Knoxville Education Association and the Knoxville CUSD #202 Board of

Education for use during the 2015-2016 school year with the knowledge that it will be reviewed and revised

after the completion of the Student Growth pilot.

2017-2018 Committee Members

Chad Bahnks, KHS Principal Joy Link, KEA Secretary/Building Rep.

Tara Bahnks, MWES Principal Matt Maaske, KJHS Principal

Stacey Farrell, KEA Building Rep. Heather Smith, KHS Asst. Principal

Katie Frey, KEA Building Rep. Jennifer Sprecher, KEA Co-President

Jodi Hise, KEA Member Steve Wilder, Superintendent


Section 1: Introduction and Overview of Danielson Framework

Introduction The Knoxville CUSD #202 Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff focuses on evidence collected around the four domains of professional skills found in The 2013 Framework for Teaching Instrument by Charlotte Danielson (see description below). The Knoxville CUSD #202 Evaluation Committee recognizes the impact that professional practice and student growth have in the evaluation process. The committee reviewed recent legislation enacted in the State of Illinois calling for student growth to be included in the Professional Evaluation Plan by the 2016-2017 school year. Student growth will be assessed and measured on a pilot-only basis during the 2015-2016 school year. The Evaluation Committee will review the Student Growth pilot and finalize the inclusion of student growth in the 2016-2017 school year.

Danielson Framework The 2013 Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson is the basis for professional practice in the Knoxville CUSD #202 Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff. The Framework for Teaching is a research-based set of components of instruction that are grounded in a constructivist view of learning and teaching. The framework is an invaluable tool to be used as the foundation for professional conversations among educators as they enhance their skill in the complex task of teaching. The framework for teaching is based on the Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessment criteria developed by Educational Testing Service, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and is compatible with Interstate New Teacher Assessments and Supports Consortium (INTASC) standards. The Framework for Teaching has been validated as a reliable and valid measurement tool when measuring teaching practice in both the 2011 Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) study and 2012 Measuring Effective Teaching (MET) study. The Framework will support Knoxville CUSD #202’s hiring, mentoring, coaching, professional development, and Certified Staff evaluation process. The goal is to link all of these activities together to help Certified Staff and Evaluators become more thoughtful and effective educators.


Section 2: Knoxville CUSD #202’s Evaluation Practice Beliefs and Commitments

The Knoxville CUSD #202 Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff…

● Supports Certified Staff in taking ownership of their professional practice, ● Supports Certified Staff in taking responsibility for the academic growth of their

students, ● Provides a collaborative culture that fosters:

o Trust, o Transparency, o Open communication, and o A safe, supportive professional learning environment

● Clearly defines a framework that can be understood by both certified staff and evaluators that assesses performance through measurable and varied sources of evidence.

● Supports a professional learning community that creates high expectations for continuous growth and life-long learning.

In support of the Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff, Knoxville CUSD #202 commits to…

● Professional Development that supports the professional growth of members of the certified staff.

● Professional dialogue and collaboration within the professional learning community. ● The empowerment of members of the certified staff to use best practices and

innovative instructional strategies that will challenge students and enhance their learning.

● Communicate openly regarding the Framework for Teaching and the evaluation process as they relate to each position.

● An evaluation process that is founded on professional growth, continuous learning, and continuous improvement that will use a variety of data sources to guide reflection growth.


Section 3: Standards and Common Themes for Certified Staff

Domain 1: Demonstrates effective planning and preparation for instruction through:

● Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy ● Knowledge of Students

● Setting Instructional Outcomes

● Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

● Designing Coherent Instruction

● Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: Creates an environment conducive for learning by:

● Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

● Establishing a Culture for Learning

● Managing Classroom Procedures

● Managing Student Behavior

● Organizing Physical Space

Domain 4: Demonstrates professionalism by:

● Reflecting on Teaching

● Maintaining Accurate Records

● Communicating with Families

● Participating in a Professional

Community

● Growing and Developing Professionally

● Showing Professionalism

Domain 3: Demonstrates effective instruction by:

● Communicating with Students

● Using Questioning and Discussion

Techniques

● Engaging Students in Learning

● Using Assessment in Instruction

● Demonstrating Flexibility and

Responsiveness

The Danielson framework is organized around levels of performance that represent an educator’s growth and development throughout their career. The Danielson model is focused on accountability for all aspects of the profession. Just as educators work to meet the needs of each student learner, this Evaluation Plan for Certified Staff addresses the needs of each category of Certified Staff.

In addition to the teaching framework, alternate specialist rubrics developed by Charlotte Danielson are provided for the following categories of Certified Staff (positions not otherwise listed will utilize the Framework for Teaching Instrument):

● Guidance Counselor ● Library Media Specialist


Common Themes Across the Framework

Equity Certified Staff creates a positive and respectful environment where all students are valued and are encouraged to participate. Cultural Competence Certified Staff believe students have the ability to learn regardless of cultural background, varied levels of readiness, and behavior in school. Students and Certified Staff collaborate to develop a safe environment, and student differences are recognized and valued. High Expectations All students are capable of growing cognitively, socially, emotionally, and behaviorally. Certified Staff is committed to helping all students reach their potential. Students and Certified Staff share in the educational process and our commitment to excellence. Developmental Appropriateness Students’ physical, cognitive and social-emotional development affects how they engage in learning. Certified Staff differentiates questions, strategies and expected outcomes to address each student’s level of development. Attention to Individual Students Certified Staff designs learning experiences that challenge each student at his or her individual level, while maintaining established levels of performance for all students. Embedded in these experiences is an awareness of the individual needs of the student, whether the need is intellectual, physical, or social-emotional. Appropriate Use of Technology Technology is a tool for student growth. Knoxville CUSD #202 promotes the use of technology to advance the learning of students and to foster the professional growth of Certified Staff. Student Assumption of Responsibility Teaching and learning requires Certified Staff and students to be engaged and invested. Certified Staff and students share this responsibility.


Section 4: Professional Practice Summative Rating Definitions

EXCELLENT

Professional practice at the excellent level consistently demonstrates evidence of extensive knowledge and expertise in understanding and implementing the components of the Framework for Teaching and the district curriculum. Practice at the Excellent level is demonstrated by exceptional commitment to flexible, differentiated, and responsive instructional practice as evidenced by high levels of student engagement, student-directed learning and student growth. There is evidence of extensive and rigorous individualized instruction that is developmentally and culturally appropriate. A Certified Staff Member at the excellent level provides effective, collaborative leadership in the school and district and is committed to reflective, continuous, professional practice that ensures high levels of student learning and student ownership.

PROFICIENT

Professional practice at the proficient level demonstrates evidence of a thorough knowledge of instructional practices, reflective teaching preparation and use of a broad repertoire of strategies and activities as described in the Framework for Teaching and the district curriculum. Practice at the proficient level is consistent. Knowledge of instructional practices, content, students and resources is demonstrated. A Certified Staff Member at the proficient level works independently and collaboratively to improve his/her professional practice to support and promote high levels of student learning.

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Professional practice at the needs improvement level demonstrates evidence of minimal understanding and/or implementation of the Framework for Teaching and the district curriculum. Practice at the needs improvement level is inconsistent. Understanding and implementation of instructional and/or professional behaviors is minimal. A Tenured Certified Staff Member at the needs improvement level may require a professional development plan, or other specific supports and interventions, to improve individual professional practice to achieve the proficient or excellent levels of practice.

UNSATISFACTORY

Professional practice at the unsatisfactory level demonstrates little to no evidence of understanding and/or implementation of the Framework for Teaching and the district curriculum. Practice at the unsatisfactory level is harmful to students. Inadequate and inappropriate instructional and/or unprofessional behaviors persist even after intervention(s) and support(s) have been provided. A Tenured Certified Staff Member at the unsatisfactory level must implement specific steps to improve his/her professional practice to the proficient or excellent level, which may include a Remediation Plan.


The following rating scale will be used when determining a rating for Professional Practice when either 21 or 22 indicators have been used:

4 = Excellent 3 = Proficient 2 = Needs Improvement 1 = Unsatisfactory

Therefore, when 21 indicators have been used, the maximum score will be 21 x 4 = 84. When 22 indicators are used, the maximum score will be 22 x 4 = 88.

21 Indicators 22 Indicators

73 - 84 = Excellent 76 - 88 = Excellent

52 - 72 = Proficient 54 - 75 = Proficient

31 - 51 = Needs Improvement 32 - 53 = Needs Improvement

Below 31 = Unsatisfactory Below 32 = Unsatisfactory


Section 5: Student Growth Model

Development of Assessments Assessments for the purposes of piloting student growth during the 2015-2016 school year were developed by teachers and approved by the District Evaluation Committee. Any changes to assessments will be approved by the teacher and their evaluator. Assessment Window Regular collection and analysis of student data is important to guide instruction on an annual basis. Student data for the purposes of staff evaluation will be collected in the following manner:

Tenured Staff Count data from the “informal” year Non-Tenured Staff Count data from the previous year First Year Teacher Count data from the first semester

First Semester

● Pre-assessment – beginning of year – within first 2 weeks of school ● Mid-point assessment for semester courses – at end of first quarter – for monitoring and

adjusting instruction ONLY – DOES NOT COUNT as data point ● Mid-point assessment for yearlong courses – H.S./J.H. end of semester (last 2 weeks) &

Elementary in January (within the first two weeks students get back) - for monitoring and adjusting instruction ONLY – DOES NOT COUNT as data point

● For first year non-tenured teachers, and teachers in their first year of tenure only – the December/January assessment will serve as the “post” assessment for the purposes of analyzing student growth.

Second Semester

● Mid-point assessment for semester courses – at end of 3rd quarter – for monitoring and adjusting instruction ONLY – DOES NOT COUNT as a data point

● Post-assessment – during the last 2 weeks of the semester (school year) for JH/HS teachers, and during the last 4 weeks of the semester (school year) for Elementary teachers.

Identify the percentage of the summative rating that will be based on student growth & the amount of growth that will determine what is “Excellent,” “Proficient,” “Needs Improvement,” and “Unsatisfactory.” The committee agreed that Student Growth should count as 30% of the Summative Rating in both the first year, and each successive year. The default student growth target for each student is based on the Austin (TX) ISD Model. The target will be making half growth to 100%. For example, if a pretest score is 50%, the growth target for the post-test score is 75%. For


assessments that do not fit this model, the teacher and evaluator will collaboratively identify a student growth target. Teachers and evaluators may mutually agree to different student growth targets based on other factors (such as multiple measures). When the teacher and evaluator agree that the teacher will have a student teacher, the teacher and evaluator will mutually decide what the student growth data will count towards the teacher’s summative rating. When discussing the criteria for what constitutes “Excellent,” “Proficient,” “Needs Improvement,” and “Unsatisfactory,” the committee decided:

80-100% of the students met their growth target = 4 70-79% of the students met their growth target = 3 60-69% of the students met their growth target = 2 below 60% of the students met their growth target = 1

The percentage will be based on the cumulative number of students that met the growth target divided by the cumulative number of students in the student assessment group that met the attendance criteria (90% attendance during the assessment window, and present for both the pre- and post-assessments) Identify how Student Growth will be combined with Professional Practice to determine summative rating. The following matrix will be used to determine the summative rating for each teacher:

Professional Practice (top)

Student Growth

(side)

Excellent (4) Proficient (3) Needs

Improvement (2)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Excellent (4) 4.0 = Excellent

3.3 = Proficient 2.6 = Proficient 1.9 = Needs Improvement

Proficient (3) 3.7 = Excellent

3.0 = Proficient 2.3 = Needs Improvement

1.6 = Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement (2)

3.4 = Proficient

2.7 = Proficient 2.0 = Needs Improvement

1.3 = Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory (1)

3.1= Proficient



1.0 = Unsatisfactory


These ratings were determined by weighting the Professional Practice rating by 70%, and the Student Growth by 30%. Then using the following formula to determine the summative rating:

(.7 x PP) + (.3 x SG) = Summative Rating Excellent = 3.5-4.0 Proficient = 2.5-3.4

Needs Improvement = 1.5-2.4 Unsatisfactory = Below 1.4

Determine how we will monitor the data. Who will be responsible, when does it need to be done, how will it be done… The teacher will be responsible for compiling the data using the district approved form, and submitting it to the evaluator for review. Identify the student groups that will serve as the basis to measure student growth

● Elementary teachers – class ○ Regular Education Classroom - teacher will select either Reading or Math ○ Pre-Kindergarten – teacher & evaluator (will be AM or PM) ○ PE – teacher & evaluator choose one grade level ○ Art – teacher & evaluator choose one grade level ○ Music – teacher & evaluator choose one grade level ○ Title – all students for whom teachers are providing early literacy skills in a

content area in 2 grade levels ○ Special Education – all students for whom the teachers provide grades – in either

Reading or Math ○ Guidance Counselor – exception – no growth - pp only ○ Nurse – exception – no growth – pp only

● KJHS ○ Content Area Teachers – teacher & evaluator choose one grade level ○ PE – All PE teachers work with the evaluator to choose one grade level ○ Band/Orchestra – teacher & evaluator choose either 5/6 or 7/8, and either band or

orchestra ○ Special Education – all students for whom the teachers provide grades – in a

single content area ○ District Media Specialist – pp only ○ Student Service Director - pp only

● KHS ○ Content Area Teachers – teacher & evaluator choose one level of one course

(e.g. Algebra I, Biology, or Art I) ○ PE – teacher & evaluator choose one level of one course ○ Art – teacher & evaluator choose one level (Art I, Art II, etc…) ○ Special Education – all students for whom the teachers provide grades – in a

single content area ○ CTE – teacher & evaluator choose one course ○ Spanish – teacher & evaluator choose one course ○ Guidance Counselor - pp only


Section 5: Professional Evaluation Plan Summative Rating System Summative Ratings in Knoxville CUSD #202’s Professional Evaluation Plan - Ratings in each Domain are based on ratings assigned to each Indicator and/or Component within each Domain. The final Summative Rating is based on the ratings assigned to each Indicator and Domain. The final Summative Rating will be assigned by the Evaluator after the reflective conference has been held with the teacher and is based on the evidence collected during the evaluation process, and the reflective conference between the teacher and the evaluator. Professional Development and Remediation Plans – If a Tenured Certified Staff Member receives a Summative Rating of Needs Improvement, a Professional Development Plan will be developed in accordance with PERA. A Tenured Certified Staff Member whose performance is not Proficient or Excellent after the completion of a PDP, will be rated Unsatisfactory. If a Tenured Certified Staff Member exhibits evidence of Unsatisfactory practice at any point in the two–year Evaluation cycle, an overall Summative Evaluation may be conducted during the contractual school year. A Summative Rating of Unsatisfactory will result in the development of a Remediation Plan in accordance with PERA. Framework Implementation:

● Every effort will be made to apply the Framework for Teaching and the Evaluation Plan consistently, and in accordance with the Teachscape training Evaluators will be required to successfully pass prior to beginning any evaluations of Certified Staff Members.

● A rating of “Unsatisfactory” will be given to an individual where evidence indicates that “harm” is being done to a student or students.

● Certified Staff will not be penalized or receive a lower evaluation for anything for which they are not contractually entitled or obligated to do.

● If the Administration and KEA mutually agree that an evaluation has not been completed in accordance with this plan, or the requirements of SB7 or PERA, the improper evaluation shall be destroyed without any record and the evaluator will begin the evaluation process anew.


Section 6: Roles of Evaluators and Certified Staff Members in the Evaluation Process

Evaluator’s Responsibilities

● Maintain the integrity of the Evaluation Plan and the evaluation process. ● Conduct formal and informal observations. ● Communicate feedback with Certified Staff Members aligned with the Framework for Teaching. ● Provide ongoing, constructive feedback to Certified Staff Members regarding their professional

practice and student growth. ● Assign the summative rating.

Certified Staff Member’s Responsibilities

● Maintain the integrity of the Evaluation Plan and process. ● Align their professional practice with the Framework for Teaching. ● Annually collect, analyze, and reflect on student growth data ● Modify (or “pivot”) instructional practices based on student performance. ● Submit evidence of professional practice, student growth data, and other artifacts to their

evaluator in a timely manner prior to the Summative Rating Process. ● Take personal responsibility for attaining Proficient or Excellent performance.


Section 7: Definitions of Terms in the Professional Evaluation Plan

Austin (TX) ISD Model – The model to determine student growth targets used by the Austin, TX Independent School District, or the “REACH” formula. The student growth target is identified as making half growth to 100% from the pre-test to the post-test.

Certified Staff Member - This means “Teacher” as defined by the Article 21 or Article 21B of the School Code or the district collective bargaining agreement to be a full-time or part-time professional employee of the school district who is required to hold a professional educator’s license to be employed by the school district.

Components – Distinct aspects of a domain as defined by the Framework for Teaching.

Consulting Certified Staff Member – An educational employee as defined in the Educational Labor Relations Act who has at least five years of experience as a Certified Staff Member and a reasonable familiarity with the assignment of the Certified Staff Member being evaluated, and who received an Excellent rating on his/her most recent evaluation. The Consulting Certified Staff Member is selected by the Evaluator and is used for the purpose of supporting the Certified Staff Member during the completion of Remediation Plan.

Documentation – Evidence/information that supports or explains the Certified Staff Members’ professional practice that is aligned to one of the four domains, or student growth data.

Domain – One of four main areas of effective teaching practice as found in the Framework for Teaching (Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities).

Evaluation Cycle – “Evaluation Cycle” refers to the length of time during which a Summative Rating must be assigned during the evaluation process for a Certified Staff Member in accordance with SB7 and PERA. The evaluation cycle is one year for Non-Tenured Certified Staff Members. This includes one informal and two formal observations. The evaluation cycle is two years for Tenured Certified Staff Members. This includes one Formal Observation (which will occur during the “formal year”) and one Informal Observation (which occurs during the “informal year”) during a two-year cycle. The summative rating will be assigned during the Tenured Certified Staff Member’s formal year. Any evidence collected during the Tenured Certified Staff Member’s two year cycle may be used when completing the formal observation and summative rating.

Evidence – Artifacts, information, and/or observations submitted by a certified staff member’s evaluator or the certified staff member for use in determining the certified staff member’s summative rating.

Indicators - Distinct aspects of a component as defined by the Framework for Teaching.

Mentor – A Certified Staff Member with three or more years of experience in the district with a summative rating of Proficient or Excellent. It is neither the role nor the responsibility of the mentor/coach to bring concerns to the Evaluator’s attention. Mentors and coaches are not required to report the Teacher’s progress, or lack thereof, to the Evaluator.


Observation (Formal) – Formal observations: ● Are scheduled in advance, ● Last at least 30 consecutive minutes ● Include the pre-observation and post-observation conferences ● Are observations in the Certified Staff Member’s primary areas of responsibility ● Are done with full knowledge of the Certified Staff Member ● Include documentation of the observation provided to the Certified Staff Member ● Occurs during a tenured teacher’s “formal year” ● Occurs twice during a non-tenured teacher’s evaluation cycle

Observation (Informal) – Informal observations: ● Are unannounced and may occur throughout a teacher’s evaluation cycle ● Have no pre-observation conference ● Have an optional post-observation conference if requested by either the Certified Staff Member or

the Evaluator ● Are observations that relate to the Certified Staff Member’s professional responsibilities ● Can only be documented in a written evaluation if written feedback is provided to the Certified

Staff Member within 5 calendar days (written feedback may be delivered electronically to the Certified Staff Member, such as an e-mail).

● Occurs at least once during a tenured teacher’s “informal year” ● Occurs at least once during a non-tenured teacher’s evaluation cycle

Performance Evaluation – Written evaluation of the Certified Staff Member job performance based on the ratings earned on each of the components of the Framework for Teaching.

Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (or Summative Rating) – The final rating of the Certified Staff Member using the rating levels of Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory, which includes consideration of professional practice, and beginning with the 2016-2017 school year student growth.

Pre-Observation Conference – A pre-observation conference must precede a formal observation and include (1) a written lesson or unit plan and/or evidence of planning for lesson/activity in advance of the conference; (2) input by the Certified Staff Member regarding the focus of observation; and (3) a discussion of the lesson/activity to be observed.

Post-Observation Reflective Conference – A post- observation reflective conference must follow a formal observation and informal if requested by either the Certified Staff Member or Evaluator, and include (1) the Evaluator and the Certified Staff Member discussing the evidence collected about the Certified Staff Member’s professional practice; (2) the Evaluator providing specific feedback in writing; (3) the Certified Staff Member being given the opportunity to reflect and respond to the evidence provided and give additional information/explanation if needed

Professional Development Plan (PDP) – A plan for professional development created within 30 school days after the completion of an Evaluation resulting in the Needs Improvement rating. The PDP is developed by the Evaluator in consultation with the Certified Staff Member based upon areas that need improvement


and the plan includes supports that the district will provide to address the performance areas identified as needing improvement.

Qualified Evaluator – An individual who has completed the pre-qualification process and has successfully passed the State-developed assessments required under the School Code specified to evaluate Certified Staff. Each qualified Evaluator shall maintain his/her qualification by completing the re-training as required under the School Code. In order for Evaluators who are not employed as administrators to evaluate certified staff, they too must complete the process outlined above. The use of a non-administrative evaluator to evaluate certified staff must be agreed upon by both the Superintendent and KEA President.

Remediation Plan – A state-mandated Professional Plan created by the Evaluator and commenced within 30 days after a Tenured Certified Staff Member has received a Summative Rating of Unsatisfactory on a Summative Evaluation. The Remediation Plan should have deficiencies cited, provided the deficiencies are remediable, be implemented in a 90 school day timeframe, provide for a mid-point summative evaluation that follows the evaluation process outlined in this plan, and a final summative evaluation that follows the evaluation process outlined in this plan within 10 days after the conclusion of the remediation timeframe. The Certified Staff Member must receive a “proficient” or “excellent” to be reinstated to the regular evaluation cycle. A Consulting Certified Staff Member who is selected by the Evaluator and participates in the development of the plan will help support the Certified Staff Member with the implementation of the remediation plan during the 90 school day period.

Specialist – Persons included in the following categories of Certified Staff: Guidance Counselor, School Nurse, Media Specialist, or Instructional Technology Specialist.

Student Growth – The change in student performance between two distinct points in time in a given content area and on an assessment that meets the guidelines as a Type I, II, or III assessment as defined by the school code.

Written Notification – Document provided, or made available, either in hard copy or in electronic form, to each Certified Staff Member by the first day of school that includes: 1) Rating definitions and the method for determining the ratings, 2) Performance Evaluation rubric that is appropriate for the Certified Staff Member and 3) the defined process for Certified Staff Member who receives “needs improvement” and “unsatisfactory.”


Section 8: NON-TENURED PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION PLAN CHART: Years 1-4

EVALUATION TIMELINE FOR YEAR 1 - 4 NON-TENURED

TIME OF YEAR

PROCESS FORMS

By the first day

of student

attendance

● Review the Professional Evaluation Plan

Components that include the Professional

Practice Summative Rating Definitions, and

Operating Principles of the Summative Rating.

● Professional Evaluation Plan

By March 1st

● Two Formal Observations, at least one of

which must include a Summative Rating.

● An informal observation may be completed by

March 1, but it is not required.

● Written copy (which may include an electronic

copy) of a completed Performance Evaluation.

March 1st until end of school year

● Informal Observation, if not completed prior

to March 1.

● Written feedback if the evidence will be included in

a performance evaluation.

A minimum of three (3) observations are required each school year, of which two (2) must be formal observations.

Non-Tenured Certified Staff Members must have a rating of “Proficient” or “Excellent” in last two years of non-tenured status.

Tenure will be determined at the end of the fourth non-tenured year. Tenure will only be considered for Certified Staff Members who have a summative rating of “Proficient” or “Excellent” at the end of the fourth probationary year. A Non-Tenured Certified Staff Member, who has maintained a summative rating of “Excellent” in each of the first three years is eligible for early tenure.


Section 9: TENURED PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION PLAN CHART

TIME OF YEAR PROCESS FORMS By the first day of

student attendance.

● Review of the Professional Evaluation Plan Components that

include the Professional Practice Summative Rating Definitions,

and Operating Principles of the Summative Rating.


During Year 1 of the

two year process ● Either a Formal or Informal Observation with one observation

required to be formal within a two year cycle; ● Additional Formal and/or Informal Observations if mutually

agreed upon the Evaluator and the Certified Staff Member

● Written copy (which may include

an electronic copy) of a completed

Performance Evaluation.

During Year 2 of the

two year process ● Either a Formal or Informal Observation with one observation

required to be formal within a two year cycle; ● Additional Formal and/or Informal Observations if mutually

agreed upon the Evaluator and the Certified Staff Member

● Written copy (which may include

an electronic copy) of a completed

Performance Evaluation.

Before March 1st of

the 2nd year of a

two year cycle

● Summative Evaluation rating is given to the Certified Staff

Member to determine Next Steps

o Overall Rating of Proficient or Excellent – Continuation

of the district’s evaluation schedule

o Overall Rating of Needs Improvement – Professional

Development Plan

o Overall Rating of Unsatisfactory – Remediation Plan

● Performance Evaluation with a

Summative Rating


Section 10: TIMELINE FOR A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

TIMELINE PROCESS FORMS

Within 30 school days

of Certified Staff

Member receiving an

Overall Rating of Needs

Improvement

● The Evaluator will develop a Professional Development

Plan (PDP) in consultation with the Certified Staff

Member who received the summative rating of “Needs

Improvement”.

● Professional Development Plan

At the beginning of the

Professional

Development Plan

● Communicate the role and responsibilities to the

Certified Staff Member that will be providing support for

the Professional Development Plan


During the Professional

Development Plan

implementation

● Formal Observation (Pre and Post-Observation

Conference); Review and update Professional

Development Plan

● Informal Observation (required Post-Observation

Conference); Review and update Professional

Development Plan

● Additional Formal and/or Informal Observations as

mutually agreed upon the Evaluator and the Certified

Staff Member

● Mid-Plan Meeting between Evaluator and Certified Staff

Member that reviews the Framework Data

Documentation and updated progress made

● Framework Data Documentation

● Framework Examples of Evidence

and Artifacts


By March 1st ● Summative Evaluation is conducted and reviewed with

the Certified Staff Member to determine Next Steps

o Overall Rating of Proficient or Excellent –

Reinstatement to the district’s evaluation

schedule

o Second Overall Rating of Needs Improvement

becomes Unsatisfactory – Remediation Plan

o Overall Rating of Unsatisfactory – Remediation

Plan

● Summative Rating


SECTION 11: TIMELINE FOR A REMEDIATION PLAN

TIME OF YEAR PROCESS FORMS (SEE APPENDIX)

Within 30 days of

Certified Staff

Member receiving an

Overall Rating of

Unsatisfactory

● Review of the Tenured Staff Professional Evaluation Plan

Components that include the 1) Professional Practice

Summative Rating Definitions, 2) Operating Principles of

the Summative Rating, 3) Role of the Consulting Certified

Staff Member

● Develop Remediation Plan with the Consulting Certified

Staff Member to address deficiencies cited, provided that

the deficiencies are remediable

● Explain and confirm the Remediation Plan with Certified

Staff Member and the Consulting Certified Staff Member


● Certified Staff Member’s

current Performance

Evaluation Plan

● Remediation Plan

At the beginning of

the 90 day

Remediation Plan

● The Certified Staff Member begins the implementation of

the Remediation Plan with the support of the Consulting

Certified Staff Member

● Remediation Plan

Before the midpoint

of the Remediation

Plan

● One Formal Observation (Pre-Observation and

Post-Observation Conference)

● One Informal Observation (Post-Observation Conference

is required)



Staff Member


● Summative Evaluation with

Summative Rating

At the midpoint of

the Remediation Plan

● Summative Evaluation is conducted and reviewed with

the Certified Staff Member



Summative Rating

After the midpoint of


● One Formal Observation (Pre-Observation and

Post-Observation Conference)



Staff Member



Summative Rating

At the conclusion of


period

● Summative Evaluation is conducted and reviewed with

the Certified Staff Member to determine Next Steps

o Overall Rating of Proficient or Excellent –

Reinstatement to the district’s evaluation

schedule

o Overall Rating of Needs Improvement or

Unsatisfactory – Recommendation for Dismissal



Summative Rating


Professional Development Plan Template

Name: Supervisor/Evaluator:_______________________ Date of PDP: __________________

PDP Priorities: 1. Domain/ Component:

Indicators for Effective Teaching (e.g., Critical Attributes):

Date of Development

Improvement Strategies/Tasks Supports and Resources:

Date of Updates Updates on Improvement Strategies/Tasks Supports and Resources: 2. Domain/ Component


Date of Development

Improvement Strategies/Tasks: Supports and Resources:

Date of Updates Updates on Improvement Strategies/Tasks Supports and Resources: 3. Domain/ Component


Date of Development

Improvement Strategies/Tasks: Supports and Resources:

Date of Updates Updates on Improvement Strategies/Tasks Supports and Resources:


Signature Section PDP Initial Signatures: Evaluator: Certified Staff

Member:

Date: Date:

PDP Observation #1 Signatures: Evaluator: Certified Staff

Member:

Date: Date:


Member:

Date: Date:


Member:

Date: Date:


knoxville c.u.s.d. #202 evaluation plan for certified staff...knoxville c.u.s.d. #202 evaluation...

Documents